Search

It is an enormous privilege for me to present the Deane–Stone lecture. As a young academic at the University of Southampton, I read so much of the work that came out of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) and was always impressed. Also, as an undergraduate and as a master’s student at the London School of Economics, Sir Richard Stone and Professor Phyllis Deane featured prominently on my reading list. In my opinion, they were pioneers of economic measurement and, today, economists benefit hugely from their legacy.

The effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections requires continuous re-evaluation, given the increasingly dominant B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant. In this study, we investigated the effectiveness of these vaccines in a large, community-based survey of randomly selected households across the United Kingdom. We found that the effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 against infections (new polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive cases) with symptoms or high viral burden is reduced with the B.1.617.2 variant (absolute difference of 10–13% for BNT162b2 and 16% for ChAdOx1) compared to the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant. The effectiveness of two doses remains at least as great as protection afforded by prior natural infection. The dynamics of immunity after second doses differed significantly between BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1, with greater initial effectiveness against new PCR-positive cases but faster declines in protection against high viral burden and symptomatic infection with BNT162b2. There was no evidence that effectiveness varied by dosing interval, but protection was higher in vaccinated individuals after a prior infection and in younger adults. With B.1.617.2, infections occurring after two vaccinations had similar peak viral burden as those in unvaccinated individuals. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination still reduces new infections, but effectiveness and attenuation of peak viral burden are reduced with B.1.617.2., A large, community-based study in the United Kingdom indicates that the effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infections with symptoms or high viral burden is reduced with the Delta variant compared to the Alpha variant.

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in preventing new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in the general community is still unclear. Here, we used the Office for National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey—a large community-based survey of individuals living in randomly selected private households across the United Kingdom—to assess the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca; ChAdOx1) vaccines against any new SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive tests, split according to self-reported symptoms, cycle threshold value (, Results from the Office of National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey in the United Kingdom demonstrate that the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 vaccines reduce the incidence of new SARS-CoV-2 infections by up to 65% with a single dose and up to 80% after two doses, with no significant differences in efficacy observed between the two vaccines.

BackgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant has been replaced by the highly transmissible Omicron BA.1 variant, and subsequently by Omicron BA.2. It is important to understand how these changes in dominant variants affect reported symptoms, while also accounting for symptoms arising from other co-circulating respiratory viruses.MethodsIn a nationally representative UK community study, the COVID-19 Infection Survey, we investigated symptoms in PCR-positive infection episodes vs. PCR-negative study visits over calendar time, by age and vaccination status, comparing periods when the Delta, Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 variants were dominant.ResultsBetween October-2020 and April-2022, 120,995 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive episodes occurred in 115,886 participants, with 70,683 (58%) reporting symptoms. The comparator comprised 4,766,366 PCR-negative study visits (483,894 participants); 203,422 (4%) reporting symptoms. Symptom reporting in PCR-positives varied over time, with a marked reduction in loss of taste/smell as Omicron BA.1 dominated, maintained with BA.2 (44%/45% 17 October 2021, 16%/13% 2 January 2022, 15%/12% 27 March 2022). Cough, fever, shortness of breath, myalgia, fatigue/weakness and headache also decreased after Omicron BA.1 dominated, but sore throat increased, the latter to a greater degree than concurrent increases in PCR-negatives. Fatigue/weakness increased again after BA.2 dominated, although to a similar degree to concurrent increases in PCR-negatives. Symptoms were consistently more common in adults aged 18-65 years than in children or older adults.ConclusionsIncreases in sore throat (also common in the general community), and a marked reduction in loss of taste/smell, make Omicron harder to detect with symptom-based testing algorithms, with implications for institutional and national testing policies.SummaryIn a UK community study, loss of taste/smell was markedly less commonly reported with Omicron BA.1/BA.2 than Delta SARS-CoV-2 infections, with smaller declines in reported shortness of breath, myalgia and fatigue/weakness, but increases in sore throat, challenging symptom-based testing algorithms.

Given high SARS-CoV-2 incidence, coupled with slow and inequitable vaccine roll-out in many settings, there is a need for evidence to underpin optimum vaccine deployment, aiming to maximise global population immunity. We evaluate whether a single vaccination in individuals who have already been infected with SARS-CoV-2 generates similar initial and subsequent antibody responses to two vaccinations in those without prior infection. We compared anti-spike IgG antibody responses after a single vaccination with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2, or mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the COVID-19 Infection Survey in the UK general population. In 100,849 adults median (50 (IQR: 37–63) years) receiving at least one vaccination, 13,404 (13.3%) had serological/PCR evidence of prior infection. Prior infection significantly boosted antibody responses, producing higher peak levels and/or longer half-lives after one dose of all three vaccines than those without prior infection receiving one or two vaccinations. In those with prior infection, the median time above the positivity threshold was >1 year after the first vaccination. Single-dose vaccination targeted to those previously infected may provide at least as good protection to two-dose vaccination among those without previous infection.

Background Following the full re-opening of schools in England and emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant, we investigated the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in students and staff who were contacts of a confirmed case in a school bubble (school groupings with limited interactions), along with their household members. Methods Primary and secondary school bubbles were recruited into sKIDsBUBBLE after being sent home to self-isolate following a confirmed case of COVID-19 in the bubble. Bubble participants and their household members were sent home-testing kits comprising nasal swabs for RT-PCR testing and whole genome sequencing, and oral fluid swabs for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Results During November-December 2020, 14 bubbles were recruited from 7 schools, including 269 bubble contacts (248 students, 21 staff) and 823 household contacts (524 adults, 299 children). The secondary attack rate was 10.0% (6/60) in primary and 3.9% (4/102) in secondary school students, compared to 6.3% (1/16) and 0% (0/1) among staff, respectively. The incidence rate for household contacts of primary school students was 6.6% (12/183) and 3.7% (1/27) for household contacts of primary school staff. In secondary schools, this was 3.5% (11/317) and 0% (0/1), respectively. Household contacts were more likely to test positive if their bubble contact tested positive although there were new infections among household contacts of uninfected bubble contacts. Interpretation Compared to other institutional settings, the overall risk of secondary infection in school bubbles and their household contacts was low. Our findings are important for developing evidence-based infection prevention guidelines for educational settings.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic is rapidly evolving, with emerging variants and fluctuating control policies. Real-time population screening and identification of groups in whom positivity is highest could help monitor spread and inform public health messaging and strategy. Methods To develop a real-time screening process, we included results from nose and throat swabs and questionnaires taken 19 July 2020-17 July 2021 in the UK's national COVID-19 Infection Survey. Fortnightly, associations between SARS-CoV-2 positivity and 60 demographic and behavioural characteristics were estimated using logistic regression models adjusted for potential confounders, considering multiple testing, collinearity, and reverse causality. Findings Of 4,091,537 RT-PCR results from 482,677 individuals, 29,903 (0·73%) were positive. As positivity rose September-November 2020, rates were independently higher in younger ages, and those living in Northern England, major urban conurbations, more deprived areas, and larger households. Rates were also higher in those returning from abroad, and working in healthcare or outside of home. When positivity peaked December 2020-January 2021 (Alpha), high positivity shifted to southern geographical regions. With national vaccine roll-out from December 2020, positivity reduced in vaccinated individuals. Associations attenuated as rates decreased between February-May 2021. Rising positivity rates in June-July 2021 (Delta) were independently higher in younger, male, and unvaccinated groups. Few factors were consistently associated with positivity. 25/45 (56%) confirmed associations would have been detected later using 28-day rather than 14-day periods. Interpretation Population-level demographic and behavioural surveillance can be a valuable tool in identifying the varying characteristics driving current SARS-CoV-2 positivity, allowing monitoring to inform public health policy. Funding Department of Health and Social Care (UK), Welsh Government, Department of Health (on behalf of the Northern Ireland Government), Scottish Government, National Institute for Health Research.

Background One of the most debated questions in the COVID-19 pandemic has been the role of schools in SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The COVID-19 Schools Infection Survey (SIS) aims to provide much-needed evidence addressing this issue. Objective We present the study protocol and participation profile for the SIS study, aimed at assessing the role of schools in SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission within school settings, and investigating how transmission within and from schools could be mitigated through the implementation of school COVID-19 control measures. Methods SIS was a multisite, prospective, observational cohort study conducted in a stratified random sample of primary and secondary schools in selected local authorities in England. A total of 6 biobehavioral surveys were planned among participating students and staff during the 2020-2021 academic year, between November 2020 and July 2021. Key measurements were SARS-CoV-2 virus prevalence, assessed by nasal swab polymerase chain reaction; anti-SARS-CoV-2 (nucleocapsid protein) antibody prevalence and conversion, assessed in finger-prick blood for staff and oral fluid for students; student and staff school attendance rates; feasibility and acceptability of school-level implementation of SARS-CoV-2 control measures; and investigation of selected school outbreaks. The study was approved by the United Kingdom Health Security Agency Research Support and Governance Office (NR0237) and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Ethics Review Committee (reference 22657). Results Data collection and laboratory analyses were completed by September 2021. A total of 22,585 individuals—1891 staff and 4654 students from 59 primary schools and 5852 staff and 10,188 students from 97 secondary schools—participated in at least one survey. Across all survey rounds, staff and student participation rates were 45.2% and 16.4%, respectively, in primary schools and 30% and 15.2%, respectively, in secondary schools. Although primary student participation increased over time, and secondary student participation remained reasonably consistent, staff participation declined across rounds, especially for secondary school staff (3165/7583, 41.7% in round 1 and 2290/10,374, 22.1% in round 6). Although staff participation overall was generally reflective of the eligible staff population, student participation was higher in schools with low absenteeism, a lower proportion of students eligible for free school meals, and from schools in the least deprived locations (in primary schools, 446/4654, 9.6% of participating students were from schools in the least deprived quintile compared with 1262/22,225, 5.7% of eligible students). Conclusions We outline the study design, methods, and participation, and reflect on the strengths of the SIS study as well as the practical challenges encountered and the strategies implemented to address these challenges. The SIS study, by measuring current and incident infection over time, alongside the implementation of control measures in schools across a range of settings in England, aims to inform national guidance and public health policy for educational settings. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR1-10.2196/34075

The physiological effects of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) are well documented, yet the behavioural effects are largely unknown. Risk compensation suggests that gains in personal safety, as a result of vaccination, are offset by increases in risky behaviour, such as socialising, commuting and working outside the home. This is potentially problematic because transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is driven by contacts, which could be amplified by vaccine-related risk compensation behaviours. Here, we show that behaviours were overall unrelated to personal vaccination, but - adjusting for variation in mitigation policies - were responsive to the level of vaccination in the wider population: individuals in the UK were risk compensating when rates of vaccination were rising. This effect was observed across four nations of the UK, each of which varied policies autonomously.

Antibody responses are an important part of immunity after Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. However, antibody trajectories and the associated duration of protection after a second vaccine dose remain unclear. In this study, we investigated anti-spike IgG antibody responses and correlates of protection after second doses of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 vaccines for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the United Kingdom general population. In 222,493 individuals, we found significant boosting of anti-spike IgG by the second doses of both vaccines in all ages and using different dosing intervals, including the 3-week interval for BNT162b2. After second vaccination, BNT162b2 generated higher peak levels than ChAdOX1. Older individuals and males had lower peak levels with BNT162b2 but not ChAdOx1, whereas declines were similar across ages and sexes with ChAdOX1 or BNT162b2. Prior infection significantly increased antibody peak level and half-life with both vaccines. Anti-spike IgG levels were associated with protection from infection after vaccination and, to an even greater degree, after prior infection. At least 67% protection against infection was estimated to last for 2-3 months after two ChAdOx1 doses, for 5-8 months after two BNT162b2 doses in those without prior infection and for 1-2 years for those unvaccinated after natural infection. A third booster dose might be needed, prioritized to ChAdOx1 recipients and those more clinically vulnerable.

Funder: Department of Health, Funder: Department of Health & Social Care, BackgroundInformation on SARS-CoV-2 in representative community surveillance is limited, particularly cycle threshold (Ct) values (a proxy for viral load).MethodsWe included all positive nose and throat swabs 26 April 2020 to 13 March 2021 from the UK's national COVID-19 Infection Survey, tested by RT-PCR for the N, S, and ORF1ab genes. We investigated predictors of median Ct value using quantile regression.ResultsOf 3,312,159 nose and throat swabs, 27,902 (0.83%) were RT-PCR-positive, 10,317 (37%), 11,012 (40%), and 6550 (23%) for 3, 2, or 1 of the N, S, and ORF1ab genes, respectively, with median Ct = 29.2 (~215 copies/ml; IQR Ct = 21.9-32.8, 14-56,400 copies/ml). Independent predictors of lower Cts (i.e. higher viral load) included self-reported symptoms and more genes detected, with at most small effects of sex, ethnicity, and age. Single-gene positives almost invariably had Ct > 30, but Cts varied widely in triple-gene positives, including without symptoms. Population-level Cts changed over time, with declining Ct preceding increasing SARS-CoV-2 positivity. Of 6189 participants with IgG S-antibody tests post-first RT-PCR-positive, 4808 (78%) were ever antibody-positive; Cts were significantly higher in those remaining antibody negative.ConclusionsMarked variation in community SARS-CoV-2 Ct values suggests that they could be a useful epidemiological early-warning indicator.FundingDepartment of Health and Social Care, National Institutes of Health Research, Huo Family Foundation, Medical Research Council UK; Wellcome Trust.

We investigated anti-spike IgG antibody responses and correlates of protection following second doses of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the UK general population. In 222,493 individuals, we found significant boosting of anti-spike IgG by second doses of both vaccines in all ages and using different dosing intervals, including the 3-week interval for BNT162b2. After second vaccination, BNT162b2 generated higher peak levels than ChAdOX1. Older individuals and males had lower peak levels with BNT162b2 but not ChAdOx1, while declines were similar across ages and sexes with ChAdOX1 or BNT162b2. Prior infection significantly increased antibody peak level and half-life with both vaccines. Anti-spike IgG levels were associated with protection from infection after vaccination and, to an even greater degree, after prior infection. At least 67% protection against infection was estimated to last for 2-3 months after two ChAdOx1 doses and 5-8 months after two BNT162b2 doses in those without prior infection, and 1-2 years for those unvaccinated after natural infection. A third booster dose may be needed, prioritised to ChAdOx1 recipients and those more clinically vulnerable.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic is rapidly evolving, with emerging variants and fluctuating control policies. Real-time population screening and identification of groups in whom positivity is highest could help monitor spread and inform public health messaging and strategy.MethodsTo develop a real-time screening process, we included results from nose and throat swabs and questionnaires taken 19 July 2020-17 July 2021 in the UK’s national COVID-19 Infection Survey. Fortnightly, associations between SARS-CoV-2 positivity and 60 demographic and behavioural characteristics were estimated using logistic regression models adjusted for potential confounders, considering multiple testing, collinearity, and reverse causality.FindingsOf 4,091,537 RT-PCR results from 482,677 individuals, 29,903 (0·73%) were positive. As positivity rose September-November 2020, rates were independently higher in younger ages, and those living in Northern England, major urban conurbations, more deprived areas, and larger households. Rates were also higher in those returning from abroad, and working in healthcare or outside of home. When positivity peaked December 2020-January 2021 (Alpha), high positivity shifted to southern geographical regions. With national vaccine roll-out from December 2020, positivity reduced in vaccinated individuals. Associations attenuated as rates decreased between February-May 2021. Rising positivity rates in June-July 2021 (Delta) were independently higher in younger, male, and unvaccinated groups. Few factors were consistently associated with positivity. 25/45 (56%) confirmed associations would have been detected later using 28-day rather than 14-day periods.InterpretationPopulation-level demographic and behavioural surveillance can be a valuable tool in identifying the varying characteristics driving current SARS-CoV-2 positivity, allowing monitoring to inform public health policy.FundingDepartment of Health and Social Care (UK), Welsh Government, Department of Health (on behalf of the Northern Ireland Government), Scottish Government, National Institute for Health Research.

BackgroundSeveral community-based studies have assessed the ability of different symptoms to identify COVID-19 infections, but few have compared symptoms over time (reflecting SARS-CoV-2 variants) and by vaccination status.MethodsUsing data and samples collected by the COVID-19 Infection Survey at regular visits to representative households across the UK, we compared symptoms in new PCR-positives and comparator test-negative controls.ResultsFrom 26/4/2020-7/8/2021, 27,869 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive episodes occurred in 27,692 participants (median 42 years (IQR 22-58)); 13,427 (48%) self-reported symptoms (“symptomatic positive episodes”). The comparator group comprised 3,806,692 test-negative visits (457,215 participants); 130,612 (3%) self-reported symptoms (“symptomatic negative visit”). Reporting of any symptoms in positive episodes varied over calendar time, reflecting changes in prevalence of variants, incidental changes (e.g. seasonal pathogens, schools re-opening) and vaccination roll-out. There was a small increase in sore throat reporting in symptomatic positive episodes and negative visits from April-2021. After May-2021 when Delta emerged there were substantial increases in headache and fever in positives, but not in negatives. Although specific symptom reporting in symptomatic positive episodes vs. negative visits varied by age, sex, and ethnicity, only small improvements in symptom-based infection detection were obtained; e.g. adding fatigue/weakness or all eight symptoms to the classic four symptoms (cough, fever, loss of taste/smell) increased sensitivity from 74% to 81% to 90% but tests per positive from 4.6 to 5.3 to 8.7.ConclusionsWhilst SARS-CoV-2-associated symptoms vary by variant, vaccination status and demographics, differences are modest and do not warrant large-scale changes to targeted testing approaches given resource implications.SummaryWithin the COVID-19 Infection Survey, recruiting representative households across the UK general population, SARS-CoV-2-associated symptoms varied by viral variant, vaccination status and demographics. However, differences are modest and do not currently warrant large-scale changes to targeted testing approaches.

The effectiveness of BNT162b2, ChAdOx1, and mRNA-1273 vaccines against new SARS-CoV-2 infections requires continuous re-evaluation, given the increasingly dominant Delta variant. We investigated the effectiveness of the vaccines in a large community-based survey of randomly selected households across the UK. We found that the effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAd0x1 against any infections (new PCR positives) and infections with symptoms or high viral burden is reduced with the Delta variant. A single dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine had similar or greater effectiveness compared to a single dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. Effectiveness of two doses remains at least as great as protection afforded by prior natural infection. The dynamics of immunity following second doses differed significantly between BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1, with greater initial effectiveness against new PCR-positives but faster declines in protection against high viral burden and symptomatic infection with BNT162b2. There was no evidence that effectiveness varied by dosing interval, but protection was higher among those vaccinated following a prior infection and younger adults. With Delta, infections occurring following two vaccinations had similar peak viral burden to those in unvaccinated individuals. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination still reduces new infections, but effectiveness and attenuation of peak viral burden are reduced with Delta.

SummaryBackgroundSchool-based COVID-19 contacts in England are asked to self-isolate at home. However, this has led to large numbers of missed school days. Therefore, we trialled daily testing of contacts as an alternative, to investigate if it would affect transmission in schools.MethodsWe performed an open-label cluster randomised controlled trial in students and staff from secondary schools and further education colleges in England (ISRCTN18100261). Schools were randomised to self-isolation of COVID-19 contacts for 10 days (control) or to voluntary daily lateral flow device (LFD) testing for school contacts with LFD-negative contacts remaining at school (intervention). Household contacts were excluded from participation.Co-primary outcomes in all students and staff were symptomatic COVID-19, adjusted for community case rates, to estimate within-school transmission (non-inferiority margin: FindingsOf 99 control and 102 intervention schools, 76 and 86 actively participated (19-April-2021 to 27-June-2021); additional national data allowed most non-participating schools to be included in the co-primary outcomes. 2432/5763(42.4%) intervention arm contacts participated. There were 657 symptomatic PCR-confirmed infections during 7,782,537 days-at-risk (59.1/100k/week) and 740 during 8,379,749 days-at-risk (61.8/100k/week) in the control and intervention arms respectively (ITT adjusted incidence rate ratio, aIRR=0.96 [95%CI 0.75-1.22;p=0.72]) (CACE-aIRR=0.86 [0.55-1.34]). There were 55,718 COVID-related absences during 3,092,515 person-school-days (1.8%) and 48,609 during 3,305,403 person-school-days(1.5%) in the control and intervention arms (ITT-aIRR=0.80 [95%CI 0.53-1.21;p=0.29]) (CACE-aIRR 0.61 [0.30-1.23]). 14/886(1.6%) control contacts providing an asymptomatic PCR sample tested positive compared to 44/2981(1.5%) intervention contacts (adjusted odds ratio, aOR=0.73 [95%CI 0.33-1.61;p=0.44]). Rates of symptomatic infection in contacts were 44/4665(0.9%) and 79/5955(1.3%), respectively (aOR=1.21 [0.82-1.79;p=0.34]).InterpretationDaily contact testing of school-based contacts was non-inferior to self-isolation for control of COVID-19 transmission. COVID-19 rates in school-based contacts in both intervention and control groups were

We report that in a cohort of 45,965 adults, who were receiving either the ChAdOx1 or the BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, in those who had no prior infection with SARS-CoV-2, seroconversion rates and quantitative antibody levels after a single dose were lower in older individuals, especially in those aged >60 years. Two vaccine doses achieved high responses across all ages. Antibody levels increased more slowly and to lower levels with a single dose of ChAdOx1 compared with a single dose of BNT162b2, but waned following a single dose of BNT162b2 in older individuals. In descriptive latent class models, we identified four responder subgroups, including a ‘low responder’ group that more commonly consisted of people aged >75 years, males and individuals with long-term health conditions. Given our findings, we propose that available vaccines should be prioritized for those not previously infected and that second doses should be prioritized for individuals aged >60 years. Further data are needed to better understand the extent to which quantitative antibody responses are associated with vaccine-mediated protection., Longitudinal tracing of antibody responses to the ChAdOx1 and the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines in 45,965 adults from the United Kingdom give indications for vaccine prioritization.

Understanding the trajectory, duration, and determinants of antibody responses after SARS-CoV-2 infection can inform subsequent protection and risk of reinfection, however large-scale representative studies are limited. Here we estimated antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population using representative data from 7,256 United Kingdom COVID-19 infection survey participants who had positive swab SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests from 26-April-2020 to 14-June-2021. A latent class model classified 24% of participants as ‘non-responders’ not developing anti-spike antibodies, who were older, had higher SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold values during infection (i.e. lower viral burden), and less frequently reported any symptoms. Among those who seroconverted, using Bayesian linear mixed models, the estimated anti-spike IgG peak level was 7.3-fold higher than the level previously associated with 50% protection against reinfection, with higher peak levels in older participants and those of non-white ethnicity. The estimated anti-spike IgG half-life was 184 days, being longer in females and those of white ethnicity. We estimated antibody levels associated with protection against reinfection likely last 1.5-2 years on average, with levels associated with protection from severe infection present for several years. These estimates could inform planning for vaccination booster strategies., Most people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 seroconvert within a few weeks, but the determinants and duration of the antibody response are not known. Here, the authors characterise these features of the immune response using data from a large representative community sample of the UK population.

BackgroundEthnic minorities have experienced disproportionate COVID-19 mortality rates in the UK and many other countries. We compared the differences in the risk of COVID-19 related death between ethnic groups in the first and second waves the of COVID-19 pandemic in England. We also investigated whether the factors explaining differences in COVID-19 death between ethnic groups changed between the two waves.MethodsUsing data from the Office for National Statistics Public Health Data Asset on individuals aged 30-100 years living in private households, we conducted an observational cohort study to examine differences in the risk of death involving COVID-19 between ethnic groups in the first wave (from 24th January 2020 until 31st August 2020) and second wave (from 1st September to 28th December 2020). We estimated age-standardised mortality rates (ASMR) in the two waves stratified by ethnic groups and sex. We also estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for ethnic-minority groups compared with the White British population, adjusted for geographical factors, socio-demographic characteristics, and pre-pandemic health conditions.ResultsThe study population included over 28.9 million individuals aged 30-100 years living in private households. In the first wave, all ethnic minority groups had a higher risk of COVID-19 related death compared to the White British population. In the second wave, the risk of COVID-19 death remained elevated for people from Pakistani (ASMR: 339.9 [95% CI: 303.7 – 376.2] and 166.8 [141.7 – 191.9] deaths per 100,000 population in men and women) and Bangladeshi (318.7 [247.4 – 390.1] and 127.1 [91.1 – 171.3] in men and women)background but not for people from Black ethnic groups. Adjustment for geographical factors explained a large proportion of the differences in COVID-19 mortality in the first wave but not in the second wave. Despite an attenuation of the elevated risk of COVID-19 mortality after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and health status, the risk was substantially higher in people from Bangladeshi and Pakistani background in both the first and the second waves.ConclusionBetween the first and second waves of the pandemic, the reduction in the difference in COVID-19 mortality between people from Black ethnic background and people from the White British group shows that ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 mortality can be addressed. The continued higher rate of mortality in people from Bangladeshi and Pakistani background is alarming and requires focused public health campaign and policy changes.*VN and NI contributed equally to this paperResearch in contextEvidence before this studyA recent systematic review by Pan and colleagues demonstrated that people of ethnic minority background in the UK and the USA have been disproportionately affected by the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, compared to White populations. While several studies have investigated whether adjusting for socio-demographic and economic factors and medical history reduces the estimated difference in risk of mortality and hospitalisation, the reasons for the differences in the risk of experiencing harms from COVID-19 are still being explored during the course of the pandemic. Studies so far have analysed the ethnic differences in COVID-19 mortality in the first wave of the pandemic. The evidence on the temporal trend of ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 mortality, especially those from the second wave of the pandemic, is scarce.Added value of this studyUsing data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Public Health Data Asset on 29 million adults aged 30-100 years living in private households in England, we conducted an observational cohort study to examine the differences in the risk of death involving COVID-19 between ethnic groups in the first wave (from 24th January 2020 until 31st August 2020) and second wave (from 1st September to 28th December 2020). We find that in the first wave all ethnic minority groups were at elevated risk of COVID-19 related death compared to the White British population. In the second wave, the differences in the risk of COVID-19 related death attenuated for Black African and Black Caribbean groups, remained substantially higher in people from Bangladeshi background, and worsened in people from Pakistani background. We also find that some of the factors explaining these differences in mortality have changed in the two waves.Implications of all the available evidenceThe risk of COVID-19 mortality during the first wave of the pandemic was elevated in people from ethnic minority background. An appreciable reduction in the difference in COVID-19 mortality in the second wave of the pandemic between people from Black ethnic background and people from the White British group is reassuring, but the continued higher rate of mortality in people from Bangladeshi and Pakistani background is alarming and requires focused public health campaign and policy response. Focusing on treating underlying conditions, although important, may not be enough in reducing the inequalities in COVID-19 mortality. Focused public health policy as well as community mobilisation and participatory public health campaign involving community leaders may help reduce the existing and widening inequalities in COVID-19 mortality.

Real-world data on antibody response post-vaccination in the general population are limited. 45,965 adults in the UK’s national COVID-19 Infection Survey receiving Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines had 111,360 anti-spike IgG measurements. Without prior infection, seroconversion rates and quantitative antibody levels post single dose were lower in older individuals, especially >60y. Two doses achieved high responses across all ages, particularly increasing seroconversion in older people, to similar levels to those achieved after prior infection followed by a single dose. Antibody levels rose more slowly and to lower levels with Oxford-AstraZeneca vs Pfizer-BioNTech, but waned following a single Pfizer-BioNTech dose. Latent class models identified four responder phenotypes: older people, males, and those having long-term health conditions were more commonly ‘low responders’. Where supplies are limited, vaccines should be prioritised for those not previously infected, and second doses to individuals >60y. Further data on the relationship between vaccine-mediated protection and antibody responses are needed.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: The UK population-representative longitudinal COVID-19 Infection Survey. Participants: 373,402 participants aged ≥16 years contributing 1,610,562 RT-PCR results from nose and throat swabs between 1 December 2020 and 3 April 2021. Main outcome measures: New RT-PCR-positive episodes for SARS-CoV-2 overall, by self-reported symptoms, by cycle threshold (Ct) value (0.9).There was no evidence of a difference in odds of new SARS-CoV-2 infection for individuals having received two vaccine doses and with evidence of prior infection but not vaccinated (P=0.89). Vaccination had a greater impact on reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections with evidence of high viral shedding Ct

ObjectiveTo quantify rates of organ specific dysfunction in individuals with covid-19 after discharge from hospital compared with a matched control group from the general population.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingNHS hospitals in England.Participants47 780 individuals (mean age 65, 55% men) in hospital with covid-19 and discharged alive by 31 August 2020, exactly matched to controls from a pool of about 50 million people in England for personal and clinical characteristics from 10 years of electronic health records.Main outcome measuresRates of hospital readmission (or any admission for controls), all cause mortality, and diagnoses of respiratory, cardiovascular, metabolic, kidney, and liver diseases until 30 September 2020. Variations in rate ratios by age, sex, and ethnicity.ResultsOver a mean follow-up of 140 days, nearly a third of individuals who were discharged from hospital after acute covid-19 were readmitted (14 060 of 47 780) and more than 1 in 10 (5875) died after discharge, with these events occurring at rates four and eight times greater, respectively, than in the matched control group. Rates of respiratory disease (Pv4.6 (4.3 to 4.8) for age ≥70, and 11.4 (9.8 to 13.3) for non-whitev5.2 (5.0 to 5.5) for white individuals).ConclusionsIndividuals discharged from hospital after covid-19 had increased rates of multiorgan dysfunction compared with the expected risk in the general population. The increase in risk was not confined to the elderly and was not uniform across ethnicities. The diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of post-covid syndrome requires integrated rather than organ or disease specific approaches, and urgent research is needed to establish the risk factors.

SUMMARYBackgroundTo externally validate a risk prediction algorithm (QCovid) to estimate mortality outcomes from COVID-19 in adults in England.MethodsPopulation-based cohort study using the ONS Public Health Linked Data Asset, a cohort based on the 2011 Census linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, the General Practice Extraction Service Data for pandemic planning and research, radiotherapy and systemic chemotherapy records. The primary outcome was time to COVID-19 death, defined as confirmed or suspected COVID-19 death as per death certification. Two time periods were used: (a) 24th January to 30th April 2020; and (b) 1st May to 28th July 2020. We evaluated the performance of the QCovid algorithms using measures of discrimination and calibration for each validation time period.FindingsThe study comprises 34,897,648 adults aged 19-100 years resident in England. There were 26,985 COVID-19 deaths during the first time-period and 13,177 during the second. The algorithms had good calibration in the validation cohort in both time periods with close correspondence of observed and predicted risks. They explained 77.1% (95% CI: 76.9% to 77.4%) of the variation in time to death in men in the first time-period (R2); the D statistic was 3.76 (95% CI: 3.73 to 3.79); Harrell’s C was 0.935 (0.933 to 0.937). Similar results were obtained for women, and in the second time-period. In the top 5% of patients with the highest predicted risks of death, the sensitivity for identifying deaths in the first time period was 65.9% for men and 71.7% for women. People in the top 20% of predicted risks of death accounted for 90.8% of all COVID-19 deaths for men and 93.0% for women.InterpretationThe QCovid population-based risk algorithm performed well, showing very high levels of discrimination for COVID-19 deaths in men and women for both time periods. It has the potential to be dynamically updated as the pandemic evolves and therefore, has potential use in guiding national policy.FundingNational Institute of Health ResearchRESEARCH IN CONTEXTEvidence before this studyPublic policy measures and clinical risk assessment relevant to COVID-19 need to be aided by rigorously developed and validated risk prediction models. A recent living systematic review of published risk prediction models for COVID-19 found most models are subject to a high risk of bias with optimistic reported performance, raising concern that these models may be unreliable when applied in practice. A population-based risk prediction model, QCovid risk prediction algorithm, has recently been developed to identify adults at high risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes, which overcome many of the limitations of previous tools.Added value of this studyCommissioned by the Chief Medical Officer for England, we validated the novel clinical risk prediction model (QCovid) to identify risks of short-term severe outcomes due to COVID-19. We used national linked datasets from general practice, death registry and hospital episode data for a population-representative sample of over 34 million adults. The risk models have excellent discrimination in men and women (Harrell’s C statistic>0.9) and are well calibrated. QCovid represents a new, evidence-based opportunity for population risk-stratification.Implications of all the available evidenceQCovid has the potential to support public health policy, from enabling shared decision making between clinicians and patients in relation to health and work risks, to targeted recruitment for clinical trials, and prioritisation of vaccination, for example.

BackgroundA new variant of SARS-CoV-2, B.1.1.7/VOC202012/01, was identified in the UK in December-2020. Direct estimates of its potential to enhance transmission are limited.MethodsNose and throat swabs from 28-September-2020 to 2-January-2021 in the UK’s nationally representative surveillance study were tested by RT-PCR for three genes (N, S and ORF1ab). Those positive only on ORF1ab+N, S-gene target failures (SGTF), are compatible with B.1.1.7/VOC202012/01. We investigated cycle threshold (Ct) values (a proxy for viral load), percentage of positives, population positivity and growth rates in SGTF vs non-SGTF positives.Results15,166(0.98%) of 1,553,687 swabs were PCR-positive, 8,545(56%) with three genes detected and 3,531(23%) SGTF. SGTF comprised an increasing, and triple-gene positives a decreasing, percentage of infections from late-November in most UK regions/countries, e.g. from 15% to 38% to 81% over 1.5 months in London. SGTF Ct values correspondingly declined substantially to similar levels to triple-gene positives. Population-level SGTF positivity remained low (ConclusionsDirect population-representative estimates show that the B.1.1.7/VOC202012/01 SARS-CoV-2 variant leads to higher infection rates, but does not seem particularly adapted to any age group.

ObjectivesThe epidemiology of post-COVID syndrome (PCS) is currently undefined. We quantified rates of organ-specific impairment following recovery from COVID-19 hospitalisation compared with those in a matched control group, and how the rate ratio (RR) varies by age, sex, and ethnicity.DesignObservational, retrospective, matched cohort study.SettingNHS hospitals in England.Participants47,780 individuals (mean age 65 years, 55% male) in hospital with COVID-19 and discharged alive by 31 August 2020, matched to controls on demographic and clinical characteristics.Outcome measuresRates of hospital readmission, all-cause mortality, and diagnoses of respiratory, cardiovascular, metabolic, kidney and liver diseases until 30 September 2020.ResultsMean follow-up time was 140 days for COVID-19 cases and 153 days for controls. 766 (95% confidence interval: 753 to 779) readmissions and 320 (312 to 328) deaths per 1,000 person-years were observed in COVID-19 cases, 3.5 (3.4 to 3.6) and 7.7 (7.2 to 8.3) times greater, respectively, than in controls. Rates of respiratory, diabetes and cardiovascular events were also significantly elevated in COVID-19 cases, at 770 (758 to 783), 127 (122 to 132) and 126 (121 to 131) events per 1,000 person-years, respectively. RRs were greater for individuals aged ConclusionsIndividuals discharged from hospital following COVID-19 face elevated rates of multi-organ dysfunction compared with background levels, and the increase in risk is neither confined to the elderly nor uniform across ethnicities. The diagnosis, treatment and prevention of PCS require integrated rather than organ- or disease-specific approaches. Urgent research is required to establish risk factors for PCS.

Summary Background Decisions about the continued need for control measures to contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rely on accurate and up-to-date information about the number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and risk factors for testing positive. Existing surveillance systems are generally not based on population samples and are not longitudinal in design. Methods Samples were collected from individuals aged 2 years and older living in private households in England that were randomly selected from address lists and previous Office for National Statistics surveys in repeated cross-sectional household surveys with additional serial sampling and longitudinal follow-up. Participants completed a questionnaire and did nose and throat self-swabs. The percentage of individuals testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA was estimated over time by use of dynamic multilevel regression and poststratification, to account for potential residual non-representativeness. Potential changes in risk factors for testing positive over time were also assessed. The study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN21086382. Findings Between April 26 and Nov 1, 2020, results were available from 1 191 170 samples from 280 327 individuals; 5231 samples were positive overall, from 3923 individuals. The percentage of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 changed substantially over time, with an initial decrease between April 26 and June 28, 2020, from 0·40% (95% credible interval 0·29–0·54) to 0·06% (0·04–0·07), followed by low levels during July and August, 2020, before substantial increases at the end of August, 2020, with percentages testing positive above 1% from the end of October, 2020. Having a patient-facing role and working outside your home were important risk factors for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 at the end of the first wave (April 26 to June 28, 2020), but not in the second wave (from the end of August to Nov 1, 2020). Age (young adults, particularly those aged 17–24 years) was an important initial driver of increased positivity rates in the second wave. For example, the estimated percentage of individuals testing positive was more than six times higher in those aged 17–24 years than in those aged 70 years or older at the end of September, 2020. A substantial proportion of infections were in individuals not reporting symptoms around their positive test (45–68%, dependent on calendar time. Interpretation Important risk factors for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 varied substantially between the part of the first wave that was captured by the study (April to June, 2020) and the first part of the second wave of increased positivity rates (end of August to Nov 1, 2020), and a substantial proportion of infections were in individuals not reporting symptoms, indicating that continued monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in the community will be important for managing the COVID-19 pandemic moving forwards. Funding Department of Health and Social Care.

Background We estimated population-level associations between ethnicity and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality using a newly linked census-based data set and investigated how ethnicity-specific mortality risk evolved during the pandemic. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of respondents to the 2011 Census of England and Wales in private households, linked to death registrations and adjusted for emigration (n = 47 872 412). The outcome of interest was death involving COVID-19 between 2 March 2020 and 15 May 2020. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for ethnic-minority groups compared with the White population, controlling for individual, household and area characteristics. HRs were estimated on the full outcome period and separately for pre- and post-lockdown periods. Results In age-adjusted models, people from all ethnic-minority groups were at elevated risk of COVID-19 mortality; the HRs for Black males and females were 3.13 (95% confidence interval: 2.93 to 3.34) and 2.40 (2.20 to 2.61), respectively. However, in fully adjusted models for females, the HRs were close to unity for all ethnic groups except Black [1.29 (1.18 to 1.42)]. For males, the mortality risk remained elevated for the Black [1.76 (1.63 to 1.90)], Bangladeshi/Pakistani [1.35 (1.21 to 1.49)] and Indian [1.30 (1.19 to 1.43)] groups. The HRs decreased after lockdown for all ethnic groups, particularly Black and Bangladeshi/Pakistani females. Conclusion Differences in COVID-19 mortality between ethnic groups were largely attenuated by geographical and socio-demographic factors, though some residual differences remained. Lockdown was associated with reductions in excess mortality risk in ethnic-minority populations, which has implications for a second wave of infection.

BackgroundDecisions regarding the continued need for control measures to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2 rely on accurate and up-to-date information about the number of people and risk factors for testing positive. Existing surveillance systems are not based on population samples and are generally not longitudinal in design.MethodsFrom 26 April to 19 September2020, 514,794 samples from 123,497 individuals were collected from individuals aged 2 years and over from a representative sample of private households from England. Participants completed a questionnaire and nose and throat swab were taken. The percentage of individuals testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA was estimated over time using dynamic multilevel regression and post-stratification, to account for potential residual non-representativeness. Potential changes in risk factors for testing positive over time were also evaluated using multilevel regression models.FindingsBetween 26 April and 19 September 2020, in total, results were available from 514,794 samples from 123,497 individuals, of which 489 were positive overall from 398 individuals. The percentage of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 changed substantially over time, with an initial decrease between end of April and June, followed by low levels during the summer, before marked increases end of August and September 2020. Having a patient-facing role and working outside your home were important risk factors for testing positive in the first period but not (yet) in the second period of increased positivity rates, and age (young adults) being an important driver of the second period of increased positivity rates. A substantial proportion of infections were in individuals not reporting symptoms (53%-70%, dependent on calendar time).InterpretationImportant risk factors for testing positive varied substantially between the initial and second periods of higher positivity rates, and a substantial proportion of infections were in individuals not reporting symptoms, indicating that continued monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in the community will be important for managing the epidemic moving forwards.FundingThis study is funded by the Department of Health and Social Care. KBP, ASW, EP and JVR are supported by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at the University of Oxford in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) (NIHR200915). AG is supported by U.S. National Institute of Health and Office of Naval Research. ASW is also supported by the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and by core support from the Medical Research Council UK to the MRC Clinical Trials Unit [MC_UU_12023/22] and is an NIHR Senior Investigator. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, NIHR, Department of Health, or PHE.Research in contextEvidence before this studyUnprecedented control measures, such as national lockdowns, have been widely implemented to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Decisions regarding the continued need for social distancing measures in the overall population, specific subgroups and geographic areas heavily rely on accurate and up-to-date information about the number of people and risk factors for testing positive. We searched PubMed and medRxiv and bioRxiv preprint servers up to 6 June 2020 for epidemiological studies using the terms “SARS-CoV-2” and “prevalence” or “incidence” without data or language restrictions. Most studies were small or had only information about current presence of the virus for a small subset of patients, or used data not representative of the community, such as hospital admissions, deaths or self-reported symptoms. Large population-based studies, such as the current study, are required to understand risk factors and the dynamics of the epidemic.Added value of this studyThis is the first longitudinal community survey of SARS-CoV-2 infection at national and regional levels in the UK. With more than 500,000 swabs from more than 120,000 individuals this study provides robust evidence that the percentage of individuals from the general community in England testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 clearly declined between end of April and June 2020,, followed by consistently low levels during the summer, before marked increases end of August and September 2020. Risk factors for testing positive varied substantially between the initial and second periods of higher positivity rates, with having a patient-facing role and working outside your home being important risk factors in the first period but not (yet) in the second period, and age (young adults) being an important driver of the second period of increased positivity rates. Positive tests commonly occurred without symptoms being reported.Implications of all the available evidenceThe observed decline in the percentage of individuals testing positive adds to the increasing body of empirical evidence and theoretical models that suggest that the lockdown imposed on 23 March 2020 in England was associated, at least temporarily, with a decrease in infections. Important risk factors for testing positive varied substantially between the initial and second periods of higher positivity rates, and a substantial proportion of infections were in individuals not reporting symptoms, indicating that continued monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in the community will be important for managing the epidemic moving forwards.

ObjectivesTo estimate population-level associations between ethnicity and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality, and to investigate how ethnicity-specific mortality risk evolved over the course of the pandemic.DesignRetrospective cohort study using linked administrative data.SettingEngland and Wales, deaths occurring 2 March to 15 May 2020.ParticipantsRespondents to the 2011 Census of England and Wales aged ≤100 years and enumerated in private households, linked to death registrations and adjusted to account for emigration before the outcome period, who were alive on 1 March 2020 (n=47,872,412).Main outcome measureDeath related to COVID-19, registered by 29 May 2020.Statistical methodsWe estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for ethnic minority groups compared with the White population using Cox regression models, controlling for geographical, demographic, socio-economic, occupational, and self-reported health factors. HRs were estimated on the full outcome period and separately for pre- and post-lockdown periods in the UK.ResultsIn the age-adjusted models, people from all ethnic minority groups were at elevated risk of COVID-19 mortality; the HRs for Black males and females were 3.13 [95% confidence interval: 2.93 to 3.34] and 2.40 [2.20 to 2.61] respectively. However, in the fully adjusted model for females, the HRs were close to unity for all ethnic groups except Black (1.29 [1.18 to 1.42]). For males, COVID-19 mortality risk remained elevated for the Black (1.76 [1.63 to 1.90]), Bangladeshi/Pakistani (1.35 [1.21 to 1.49]) and Indian (1.30 [1.19 to 1.43]) groups. The HRs decreased after lockdown for all ethnic groups, particularly Black and Bangladeshi/Pakistani females.ConclusionsDifferences in COVID-19 mortality between ethnic groups were largely attenuated by geographical and socio-economic factors, although some residual differences remained. Lockdown was associated with reductions in excess mortality risk in ethnic minority populations, which has major implications for a second wave of infection or local spikes. Further research is needed to understand the causal mechanisms underpinning observed differences in COVID-19 mortality between ethnic groups.

ObjectiveTo estimate the percentage of individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) over time in the community in England and to quantify risk factors.DesignRepeated cross-sectional surveys of population-representative households with longitudinal follow-up if consent given.SettingEnglandParticipants34,992 Individuals aged 2 years and over from 16,722 private residential households. Data were collected in a pilot phase of the survey between 26 April and 28 June 2020.Main outcome measuresPercentage of individuals in the community testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA using throat and nose swabs. Individuals were asked about any symptoms and potential risk factors.ResultsThe percentage of people in private-residential households testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 reduced from 0.32% (95% credible interval (CrI) 0.19% to 0.52%) on 26 April to 0.08% (95% CrI 0.05% to 0.12%) on 28 June, although the prevalence stabilised near the end of the pilot. Factors associated with an increased risk of testing positive included having a job with direct patient contact (relative exposure (RE) 4.06, 95% CrI 2.42 to 6.77)), working outside the home (RE 2.49, 95% CrI 1.39 to 4.45), and having had contact with a hospital (RE 2.20, 95% CrI 1.09 to 4.16 for having been to a hospital individually and RE 1.95, 95% CrI 0.81 to 4.09 for a household member having been to a hospital). In 133 visits where individuals tested positive, 82 (61%, 95% CrI 53% to 69%) reported no symptoms, stably over time.ConclusionThe percentage of SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals declined between 26 April and 28 June 2020. Positive tests commonly occurred without symptoms being reported. Working outside your home was an important risk factor, indicating that continued monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in the community will be essential for early detection of increases in infections following return to work and other relaxations of control measures.What is already known on this topic-Unprecedented control measures, such as national lockdowns, have been widely implemented to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2.-Previous mass surveillance has been based on data sources such as hospital admission, deaths or self-reported symptoms that do not measure community prevalence of virus directly.-Decisions regarding the continued need for social distancing measures in the overall population, specific subgroups and geographic areas heavily rely on accurate and up-to-date information about the number of people and risk factors for testing positive.What this study adds-The percentage of individuals from the general community in England testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 clearly declined between 26 April and 28 June 2020 from around one in three 300 to around one in a thousand.-Risk factors for testing positive included having a job with direct patient contact, having had (indirect) contact with a hospital in the past 2 weeks, and working outside your home.-Positive tests commonly occurred without symptoms being reported and the percentage of individuals with a positive test that reported no symptoms was stable over time.

Thank you very much colleagues for your warm welcome. I am very grateful for your invitation to give the 2015 lecture to the Association of University Administrators (AUA).I first became aware of y...

SummaryThe one-number census approach was developed by the Office for National Statistics to adjust the counts from the 2001 census of England and Wales for underenumeration. The method is underpinned by an assumption of independence between the count of the population that was given by the 2001 census and the count that was given by the Census Coverage Survey. Some dependence was, however, detected, and the paper describes the strategy that was used to measure dependence and to adjust the 2001 census population estimates.

This article reports on the conduct and results of a randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a teacher-led intervention to improve teenagers' knowledge of emergency contraception. The trial was successfully conducted in 24 mixed-sex state secondary schools in Avon, South-west England. The intervention was popular with both teachers and pupils, and significantly improved pupils' knowledge of emergency contraception. The article uses the emergency contraception trial to demonstrate the feasibility of conducting large-scale randomised trials in schools. The article focuses particularly on study design, specification of research question, recruitment of schools and method of randomisation to highlight methodological choices that can maximise the feasibility and value of such trials to answer questions regarding the effectiveness of complex educational interventions. The article also highlights the importance of using theory and mixed research methods both to thoroughly develop an intervention before it is tested in a trial, and also to evaluate factors affecting its success within a trial.